Granted it is a sales presentation, it details advances ESS claim in the design of their sigma-delta DACs.

Foremost in the claims is the fact that some people can evidently hear features well below the noise floor which were previously held by the majority of engineers to be inaudible. This is said to be confirmed in blind testing.

Large changes in the values of variables in the state space are said to contribute to non-periodic steady-state noise normally invisible using conventional measurement techniques. This is visible when instrumentation is used to examine the Noise-vs-DC Offset.

This is said to be minimized in ESS products by techniques designed to control the state-space related noise by rapidly quenching state variable excursions.

ESS also claim that a further artifact of sigma-delta modulators, variable (non-linear) excess phase, which causes oscillation in S-D modulators, has been eliminated by making their devices unconditionally stable, and that this too contributes to greater acceptance of the devices by some listeners, although the reasons for this are apparently not clearly understood.

Until positive DBT test results are shown to be repeatable, I don't think people will need to embrace themselves for an impending shitstorm.

If I was sure that it was coming, I wouldn't have said 'if and when', but nobody thus far has said anything to convince me that the claims are fallacious, which is not always the case with audio claims.

It's customary, however, for claimants to ignore the existence of DB testing, or to downplay it's significance, rather than to fly in the face of the likelihood that an inaccurate claim will be exposed. Of course it could be a ruse, but at what cost to the company's reputation when exposed?

It could just be a mistake, but it's a pretty lucky mistake that exposes a feature in your product that you can modify with visible results and for which you can claim an audible benefit. It's the cumulative serendipity that makes dissembling seem less probable. Still, stranger things have happened at sea.

If I was sure that it was coming, I wouldn't have said 'if and when', but nobody thus far has said anything to convince me that the claims are fallacious, which is not always the case with audio claims.

Fallacy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is duly noted.

QUOTE (wakibaki @ Jan 23 2013, 14:14)

It's customary, however, for claimants to ignore the existence of DB testing, or to downplay it's significance, rather than to fly in the face of the likelihood that an inaccurate claim will be exposed.

Customary, perhaps, but certainly not the way it always goes down. Case in point: Steve Hoffman's insistence that he can ABX his DACs, which was discussed a few years ago.

QUOTE (wakibaki @ Jan 23 2013, 14:14)

Of course it could be a ruse, but at what cost to the company's reputation when exposed?

Likely minimal. Those who insist they can tell the difference between DACs are generally not interested in DBT except when it is convenient for them.

QUOTE (wakibaki @ Jan 23 2013, 14:14)

It could just be a mistake, but it's a pretty lucky mistake that exposes a feature in your product that you can modify with visible results and for which you can claim an audible benefit. It's the cumulative serendipity that makes dissembling seem less probable. Still, stranger things have happened at sea.

It could be something entirely different from the claimed mechanism that may cause a legitimate and repeatable audible difference. It also begs the question, does this "difference" result in better sound, or just different sound?

Look, I don't necessarily hold traditional measurements as sacrosanct and am happy that DBT is rightfully being held as the supreme metric. I will not jump to the conclusion that we have a smoking gun when the results have not been vetted, however. IMO, that would make me gullible.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jan 24 2013, 00:17

--------------------

Breath is found in waveform and spectral plots;DR figures too, of course.

No fallacy has been demonstrated yet. If you believe that one has, please state it clearly.

QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 23 2013, 22:25)

Case in point: Steve Hoffman's insistence that he can ABX his DACs, which was discussed a few years ago.

A single swallow doth not a summer make. Unless of course you have a list of such occurrences. In which case I'm sure I can find an overwhelming majority of contradictory examples.

QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 23 2013, 22:25)

Likely minimal. Those who insist they can tell the difference between DACs are generally not interested in DBT except when it is convenient for them.

Generally. But not inevitably. I've accepted that it could be a ruse. There's no necessity to labour the point. Are you trying to prejudice the issue?

QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 23 2013, 22:25)

It could be something entirely different from the claimed mechanism that may cause a legitimate and repeatable audible difference. It also begs the question, does this "difference" result in better sound, or just different sound?

It could be something entirely different. What is the difference between an illegitimate difference and a legitimate difference? I hope there is a difference. Or perhaps this is a case of, as they say, a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

No, it doesn't beg the question. The issue is one of difference and its detectability, not quality. Please do not attempt to introduce red herrings.

QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 23 2013, 22:25)

Look, I don't necessarily hold traditional measurements as sacrosanct and am happy that DBT is rightfully being held as the supreme metric. I will not jump to the conclusion that we have a smoking gun when the results have not been vetted, however.